The Allies released two important documents related to Taiwan's status during World War II: the Cairo Declaration on Dec. 1, 1943 and the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945. The latter was signed by US president Harry Truman, Republic of China (ROC) president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and British prime minister Winston Churchill.
These two documents provide the standard answer to the question of Taiwan's status, and are the basis for the legitimacy of the ROC's claim to rule over Taiwan.
The Cairo Declaration is similar in nature to a statement, and the document is actually entitled the Cairo Press Communique. On the other hand, the Potsdam Declaration makes it clear that it is a proclamation.
Neither document resembles the type of official international treaty normally used when territories are transferred.
Since the Cairo and Potsdam declarations are not binding treaties, they cannot provide a legal foundation for the post-war jurisdiction of Taiwan and Penghu under international law.
The subtitle of the Potsdam Declaration -- Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender -- makes it clear that it is a proclamation, which isn't exactly the same thing as a declaration.
The biggest difference between the Potsdam Declaration and the Cairo Declaration is that the Potsdam document was signed by the US president, ROC president and the British prime minister. Nevertheless, the Potsdam Declaration is not a treaty acknowledged by international law and does not have the binding power of a treaty.
The Potsdam Declaration says that Japan shall proclaim its surrender, that the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and that Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and "such minor islands as we determine."
After the signing of the Instrument of Surrender in Japan, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers issued General Order No. 1 on Sept. 2, 1945. The order was an official instruction for the handling of Japan and its colonies after the war. The order thus clearly regulated the takeover of territories after Japan's surrender.
According to General Order No. 1, when Chinese General Ho Ying-chin (
It must be noted that the surrender document clearly stated that Ho, as Chiang's representative, received the surrender on behalf of the US, the ROC, the UK, the USSR and other allies that fought Japan.
As the order clearly states, the Japanese forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indochina above 16 latitude north were all required surrender to Chiang, but this should not be construed as meaning that Chiang was given sovereignty over these territories.
Hsueh Hua-yuan is the director of the Graduate Institute of Taiwan History at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS